Deltoid

I like the way he's publishing an article in a newspaper about how people are completely unable to do what he's doing. How did he manage to sneak it past, I wonder. There is only one rational explanation: Bryant Macfie is a ninja.

Posted by: pough | May 7, 2008 11:20 AM

In sixteen thirty-three,
Galileo Galilei
To quote Thomas Huxley,
makes it apostasy;

The Inquisition,
a newer religion
environmental activism,
conventional wisdom.

Jeez, this is hard. Why can't this be as easy to mould into "found poetry" as Rumsfeld's unknown-unknowns speech?

Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 7, 2008 1:29 PM

From the article:

Phrases such as "the argument is over, the science is settled" are so much fatuous nonsense and should almost never be used in the scientific community.

So does the earth orbit the sun or not? Is the Argument over? Is the science settled? Or should we constantly be considering alternative theories?

-mark.

Posted by: rfguy | May 7, 2008 3:19 PM

6 and #7 make very good points....

However, if we are talking about the phrase "The debate is over", I agree it shouldn't be used.

The debate over GW? The debate over AGW? The debate over natural forcings? The debate over the accuracies of readings? The debate over interpreting data? The debate over the amount of predicted future warming or cooling? The debate over speculative catastrophies? The debate over how much time we have? The debate over whether or not changing a light bulb will help save a Polar Bear?

6....The science is settled on the Earth orbiting the sun, but the debate continues on how the orbital eccentricities of the earth and variations in the Sun's output effect GW.

7....The science confirming evolutionary processes is clear (to most of us), however, there is still plenty of room for debating all the mechanisms involved.

Posted by: Betula | May 7, 2008 4:53 PM

The "debate" is one side doing science and dealing with facts as they are and the other side denying facts and dealing in fantasy.

Posted by: QrazyQat | May 7, 2008 6:23 PM

6....The science is settled on the Earth orbiting the sun, but the debate continues on how the orbital eccentricities of the earth and variations in the Sun's output effect GW.

The science is settled on whether or not solar irradiance variations could change global average temperatures. Of course they could, if they occurred. But is this what has been occurring recently?

Nope.

Posted by: rfguy | May 7, 2008 7:03 PM

Your all missing the really interesting aspect of that article:

It's written by Perth philanthropist Bryant Macfie, who is funding a research partnership between the Institute of Public Affairs and the University of Queensland, in which they fund 'scientists' who buck the concensus (as apposed to all the others who are apparently mindless drones who conduct their research with dutiful adherence to a grand scientific orthodoxy).

So this guy is putting up wads of money to back his skepticism, and has used it to convince a University to come along for the ride.

It'll be really interested to see what kind of research they fund and who the researchers will be. Going by this article their primary criteria is that the fundees are mavericks in their field. I wonder how they will deal with other considerations like the quality of research output, the political implications of the research, and the plausibilitiy of the idea. Given that the Institute of public affairs is involved, compatibility with libertarian economics is probably the uppermost consideration.

Interesting place for the University of Queensland to be heading! And who get to make the decisions about what gets funded, Macfie or the University of Queensland. Perhaps they will be starting up their own journal, that'll be worth a look for laughs.

Posted by: pico | May 7, 2008 9:03 PM

"In 1633 Galileo Galilei"

There is no point in reading further.

I got slightly further into than that, but not much. Decided to scratch my arse and gaze out the window instead, much more productive and satisfying use of my time.

[Note to self: Must stop reading The Rag formerly known as The Australian, even if it is only the free online version.]

Posted by: WotWot | May 7, 2008 11:09 PM

"It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." -- Robert L. Park

Posted by: Hank Roberts | May 7, 2008 11:56 PM

Intelligent Grappling.

Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 8, 2008 1:01 AM

Bi,

You forgot to mention that Al Gore is fat.

Posted by: ChrisC | May 8, 2008 1:12 AM

There was another story yesterday with more details:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23657735-2702,00.html

Here's a UQ page on the scholarships:

http://www.uq.edu.au/grad-school/ipa-phd-scholarships

It says in part:

====================

Personal skills and attributes should include:

1. The ability to access, analyse and evaluate data in topical areas;
2. Well-developed oral and written communication skills;
3. The ability to participate in the public debate on environmental issues; and
4. An understanding of evidence-based non-partisan assessments.

====================

The public debate part seems a little strange to me.

Posted by: darkpaw | May 8, 2008 3:23 AM

12 rfguy; you link the Lockwood and Frolich paper; Svensmark and Friis-Christensen did reply to that and were critiqued by Tamino in his usual take no prisoners fashion. However Lockwood & Frohlich were also critiqued by Ken Gregory at the Science and Public policy site.

Sloan and Wolfendale have also had a go at the cosmic ray theory and their views are critiqued here:

http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale

It does seem remarkable that Lockwood found no further solar imput after 1987; even disregarding cosmic rays and TSI variation, it is established that less solar activity, such as we are enjoying now, means less solar UV and much less X-Ray flux; since these are preferentially absorbed in the stratosphere, less of them will mean cooler coditions there, which is apparently what Aqua is finding. A cooler stratosphere will condense, increase jet-stream strengh and drag polar air towards the equator, with the result of global cooling.

NASA have also noted how solar flux can produce marked regional effects which in turn have global consequences:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/

Posted by: cohenite | May 8, 2008 5:59 AM

It does seem remarkable that Lockwood found no further solar imput after 1987;

And when did global warming supposedly "stop"? Not 1987, even by you inactivists' own account. But let's ignore that, you didn't see anything, and oh look here's a totally different talking point, woo!

= =

disinterested observer:

Wow, I'm starting to like the look of this already...

Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 8, 2008 6:29 AM

26:

I'm sure there are many blog posts "critiquing" the science, but do you have any links to peer-reviewed publications that do so?

How about papers published on the link between UV and X-ray flux and stratospheric temperature?

From the Nasa site:

Changes in this wind flow have only a small impact on global temperatures as the warm and cold regions average out, but they have large regional effects.

Looks like marked regional effects with little global consequence to me.

Posted by: rfguy | May 8, 2008 7:20 AM

In 1633 Galileo Galilei ... discovered an inconvenient truth.

We need to embrace the Galileo example, because of, in Michel Tobis' words, it's intellectual (truth against special interests), not social (one against many) analogy.

In the same vein as some denialists say "the climate has changed before". Yes, it has, and the effects have been drastic like sea levels tens of meters higher - all the more reason to be concerned of the current change.

Galileo is a relevant example because of how science was attacked by religion. Nowadays science is attacked by industry (since money making and "the economy" is the real main religion currently).

Posted by: mz | May 8, 2008 7:28 AM

It would have of course helped more if Galileo had had thousands of other people having done similar observations and analyses, ending up to the same conclusion, all published in the literature and most verifiable...

Posted by: mz | May 8, 2008 7:30 AM

@Barton (#35):

Most Christians have no problem with evolution

Indeed - globally...

there have been atheists who didn't accept it or who championed crackpot alternatives to natural selection; e.g. Arthur Koestler and Trofim D. Lysenko

Indeed there have. But the overwhelming majority of creationists and cdesign proponentsists claim Christianity.

The USA is overwhelmingly Christian - far more so than any other Western democracy. The USA has far lower acceptance rates for evolutionary theory than any other Western democracy; it even has - get this - debate within its school system about whether evolutionary biology has a place in the curriculum. As for what happens to teachers caught teaching evolution in the Bible Belt...

Like it or not, the major force keeping Americans ignorant of evolutionary biology marches under the banner of christianity. There is no bigotry in pointing that out, even in forceful terms. It's also interesting that the same states that were quick to pass anti-evolution laws in the early part of the 20th century were also the states most zealous in passing and enforcing eugenics laws...the Bible Belt states.

Posted by: Robin Levett | May 8, 2008 9:30 AM

WotWot (#16):

The Australian does offer at least one reasonable voice - Barry Williams'(of the Aus Skeptics) blog.

Posted by: MJ | May 8, 2008 10:12 AM

Who indeed, cohenite.

FYI the jets have been found to be moving toward the poles (an effect related to the expansion of the tropics). Even so there's more cold air moving equatorwards, you say? Hmm, I detect a contradiction. Cite for that claim?

Posted by: Steve Bloom | May 8, 2008 11:20 AM

How about Ka-Kit Tung's and Charles D. Camp's latest piece on solar influences?

How about it?

In Tung's own words, "The finding adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming. It also effectively rules out some lower estimates in those models."

-mark.

Posted by: rfguy | May 8, 2008 12:19 PM

Have climate scientists ever denied there is a solar input to climate change? As far as it can be measured it's been included. Being measured, solar changes are small in comparison to other measured changes in climate forcings. You only get to imply it's a major forcing by ignoring or devaluing the other measured forcings and assigning the difference to unmeasured interactions of sun and atmosphere. That is not sound science. Galileo is remembered as great because he was right. He also lived at a time when scientific inquiry was next to non-existent. Inquiry, performed by many people trained as scientists, using scientific methods, within institutions with long histories of successful scientific work should not be ignored or dismissed so casually. If the "flaws" in AGW are so clear and obvious AGW would have collapsed like the house of cards the denialist claim it is, long before now. It hasn't and won't without much better science as a basis and using science to clarify things brings us back to the science we have now.

Posted by: Ken | May 8, 2008 8:10 PM

MJ, 38.

Fair enough. But it is not enough of a sop from the editors to get me to read The Oz anymore.

Posted by: WotWot | May 8, 2008 11:24 PM

Don't waste your time trying to discuss religion rationallly with Levinson.

He may appear rational on other topics but he's a frothing mad religious loon.

It's simply not worth the energy expended.

Posted by: Ian Gould | May 9, 2008 8:23 AM

Ian Gould posts, in his usual charming manner:

Don't waste your time trying to discuss religion rationallly with Levinson.

He may appear rational on other topics but he's a frothing mad religious loon.

Darn right. I.e., I am a Christian, and you know that all Christians are anti-evolution crackpots who want to establish a theocracy and execute gays. Well, not on Ian Gould's watch, darn it!

[tracking shot of Gould putting on WWI-era helmet, shouldering rifle with bayonet, and marching determinedly around and around the building housing the biology department, bringing curious stares from the students]

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | May 9, 2008 12:25 PM

Well, you see... to BPL,

1) any criticism of any group of Christians who does stupid things under the banner of Christianity
2) is automatically an attack on all Christians
3) and is therefore a personal attack on BPL himself.

Some form of persecution complex here, or what? (Yes, I'm referring to you specifically, BPL...)

Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 9, 2008 2:00 PM

Three things on religion.

1. Bryant Macfie implying Giordano Bruno was martyred for heliocentrist views is as slanted as the IPA climate line. Bruno's heresies were theological, apparently things like denying the virginity of Mary, asserting the eventual redemption of Satan, and it looks a bit like denying the divinity of Christ.

2. Robin Levett linking linking US Christianity to anti-evolution is missing the point that when the world's richest nation won't provide decent health care for many of it's own people, it is a long way from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. US Christianity is more political than religious.

3. Getting back to the Australian, Christopher Pearson sank to new depths on 29-30/12/07 by fabricating a quote from the Pope's Peace Day message, as "fears over man-made emissions melting ice caps .. were nothing more than scaremongering" (recylcling a distorted UK Daily Mail summary as a quote).

Posted by: Ian | May 10, 2008 7:44 AM

dhogaza, a little more cluelessly than usual, posts:

So, BPL, rather than pretend that an attack on SOME Christians who are very active and, IMO, very DANGEROUS, is an attack on Christianity at large, why not do something positive?

Like FIGHT THOSE CHRISTIANS who ARE anti-science.

It's a shame you don't frequent AOL, dhogaza. Or the web, apparently. Otherwise you'd know that my arguments against creationism are all over both.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | May 10, 2008 8:26 AM

Otherwise you'd know that my arguments against creationism are all over both.

I see ... you're anti-christian, too, then. Must be, if you're to maintain consistency, since that's your knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of specific christian acts here.

It would indeed be bad to teach creationism in biology courses, but those who think this is likely to happen any time soon have a distorted view of American politics, I think.

It happens frequently in the United States, today. And more frequently, the teaching of evolution is suppressed in order to avoid a backlash from christian fundamentalists.

This is well-documented. The Dover school district was stupid beyond belief and got spanked in court as a result, but individual teachers in many districts quietly teach creationism and are never challenged in court.

A biology teacher did get fired here in Oregon a couple of years ago for openly teaching creationism in high school biology class. But this is Oregon, not the South ...

You're wearing blinders, BPL, faith-induced blinders.

Robin Levett linking linking US Christianity to anti-evolution is missing the point that when the world's richest nation won't provide decent health care for many of it's own people, it is a long way from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. US Christianity is more political than religious.

Oh, Ian, it's terribly religious, it just has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. That's not contradictory, you know? But it's obvious to those of us living in the US that Christian Fundamentalism, as mostly frequently practiced here, is focused on the Old Testament, with only lip-service given to the teachings of Christ.

If they were focused on Christ, they wouldn't care so deeply about the six days of Genesis.

The one thing they seem to hold dear is that Christ sacrificed himself for our sins, which they interpret as being a get-out-of-hell-free card. How else does one explain the pathological "lying for Jesus" approach so favored by conservative fundamentalists in their attacks on geology, biology, physics etc?

Posted by: dhogaza | May 10, 2008 11:09 AM

Ah, so creationism is a "specific[ally] christian act?" But you're not an anti-Christian bigot, oh no.

In this country, yes, it is a fundamentalist christian point of view, and it is fundamentalist christians who are trying to push creationism into science class in public schools, and you are a fucking idiot to pretend otherwise in front of a group of well-informed readers like most who visit this site.

And pointing out this obvious fact does not make me an anti-Christian bigot.

Posted by: dhogaza | May 11, 2008 8:35 PM